The following correspondence originally took place upon my Facebook wall, after I shared artwork being shared by the page, “Statism is a Cult“…

Rayn:

“Without government,violent gangs would take over.”

Nali M.: That happened in my city. I think it’s bc she kneed him in the crotch. Still should have used the taser instead.

Rayn: The officer attempted to arrest this woman for warrants that were invalid, making him nothing more than a costumed criminal, with a shiny badge, and a gun. He was operating only undercolor of law, and had no legal right to arrest this woman.

She was under no obligation to cooperate in any way with the unlawful orders of these State agents, and appeared perfectly cognizant of this fact. She understood that she was being abducted, through use of assault and battery, with the intent to falsely imprison her, and chose to exercise her right to resist the criminal acts she was being subjected to, and attempted to appeal to reason and evidence, as her defense.

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.(Click Here to Continue Reading This Post) →

Dennise Cruz is being extorted by the State of Texas for selling homemade food to her neighbors

Rayn: Only government and big business can create jobs, lady! What are you? Too lazy to get REAL one, or something? What if everyone were to just start providing services to their neighbors without being extorted with licensing and permit fees, and without being weighed down by a host of arbitrary restrictions to peaceful activity? It would be ANARCHY!

(Matt Agorist) Carrollton, TX — In modern day police state, USA, exchanging goods and services is a crime unless the state gets their cut. So, even though a Carrollton mother was “stunned” to find a warrant issued for her arrest for selling tamales to her neighbors — it was to be expected.

This week, Dennise Cruz was shocked to receive a yellow postcard from the City of Carrollton stating that if she doesn’t immediately submit to their extortion demands, then she would be kidnapped and locked in a cage.

“That has to be wrong. I don’t have any tickets under my name. That’s just my first reaction. Never would have I thought, tamales,” said Cruz in an interview with CBS DFW. “To know that somebody can be arrested over that, that to me is unbelievable.”.

My Commentary: Only government and big business can create jobs, lady! What are you? Too lazy to get REAL one, or something? What if everyone were to just start providing services to their neighbors without being extorted with licensing and permit fees, and without being weighed down by a host of arbitrary restrictions to peaceful activity? It would be ANARCHY!

My Commentary: Read the details of this story very carefully. Then, imagine yourself peacefully coexisting with the rest of humanity, only to be suddenly abducted by armed thugs, falsely accused, and falsely imprisoned, all while eight months pregnant, simply because you happen to share the same first name with a suspect who drove her car to a police-surveilled drug deal, and the State has decided that they have just cause to pursue you as a criminal based upon this this SINGLE FACT, alone…

Ashley Brown had no criminal record, and a solid alibi for the day in question. However, according to the article, “for eight grueling months following her arrest, Brown said she was required to make daily status phone calls and subject herself to random drug tests twice a week at her own expense.

Ultimately, prosecutors agreed to drop the charges against her.

Brown said she felt embarrassed to have to go through what she did, especially when she was pregnant and she feels she is entitled to an apology.

‘I hope this never happens to anybody, and I hope they do their research better before they go to try to convict somebody of something they didn’t do,’ said Brown.”